More Mad Patents

I wrote earlier today about Michael Jackson and his patent.

It turns out that patenting is contagious amongst his circle of friends. Notorious spoonbender, Jackson confidant and outright weirdo Uri Geller also has a nice little patent portfolio.

My favourite is his patent application entitled: "Method and system for enabling viewer polling and election of prospective parents in broadcast child adoption proceedings".

In short, his idea is for couples to compete against each other in a television game show to win legal custody of a child.

Here's what is claimed under the application:

What is claimed is:

1. A method for selecting adoptive parents, comprising: providing a plurality of parent-contestants; displaying, on a receiving unit comprising a video display, an image of at least one of said parent-contestants; transmitting selections from a plurality of viewers to a server facility over a communications network; compiling said selections transmitted over said communications network for each of said parent-contestants; and awarding at least one child available for adoption to at least one winning parent-contestant.

2. The method according to claim 1, further comprising displaying, on said receiving unit, at least one image of a child available for adoption;

3. The method according to claim 1, wherein said image of at least one parent-contestant is displayed as a function of time.

4. The method according to claim 1, wherein said selections comprise choices for at least one of: a) eliminating a parent-contestant from a pool, and b) selecting a parent-contestant to remain in said pool.

5. The method according to claim 1, wherein said selections include comments.

6. The method according to claim 5, further wherein said comments comprise extemporaneous narrative and/or pre-selected narrative.

7. The method according to claim 1, wherein the selections are supplemented by bonus points.

8. The method according to claim 7, further wherein said points are awarded to the parent-contestants based upon the performance of specified games or tasks.

9. The method according to claim 1, wherein the parent-contestant receiving the greatest number of selections is either eliminated from a pool or selected to remain in said pool.

10. The method according to claim 1, wherein said selections are made intermittently or periodically.

11. The method according to claim 1, wherein said compiling is performed either intermittently or periodically.

12. The method according to claim 4, wherein said viewers are presented with the opportunity to change their selections after a specified period of time and or the occurrence of a specified event.

13. The method according to claim 1, wherein said parent-contestants are subject to surveillance on an intermittent, periodic, continuous and or on-demand basis.

14. The method according to claim 1, wherein information is presented on the display screen of said receiving unit.

15. The method according to claim 14, further wherein said information includes at least one of graphical, video and audio data.

16. A system for selecting adoptive parents, comprising: a communications network for transmitting selections from a plurality of viewers; a broadcast headed facility having a server for compiling said selections transmitted over said communications network for a plurality of parent-contestants; a file storage device; a least one viewer input device; a receiving unit comprising a video display for displaying an image of at least one said parent-contestants;

17. The system according to claim 16, further comprising a receiving unit comprising a video display for displaying at least one image of a child available for adoption;

18. The system according to claim 16, wherein said at least one input device includes at least one of a telephone, computer, portable digital assistant, set-top box and user-input controller.

19. The system according to claim 16, further comprising a parent-contestant surveillance device.

20. The system according to claim 18, wherein said surveillance device is a closed circuit and or distributed network.

21. The system according to claim 19, wherein said device is portable.

22. The system according to claim 20, further wherein said portable device is wirelessly coupled to said headend facility.

Brilliant. And even if the TV networks won't touch it I'm sure Madonna will be queuing up to take a licence.

One Crazy Coach

Is South African rugby coach Peter de Villiers mad?






Since taking charge of the Springboks he's become well-known for saying some controversial, and sometimes plain weird things.

Here's a sample of some of his more interesting brain explosions:

On rugby:

"I know dancing is also a contact sport, but rugby is far from dancing. If you want to run with the big dogs, then sometimes you have to lift your leg."

On motivating his team:

"I'll tell them talk is cheap and money buys the whiskey."

On critics:

"The same people who threw their robes on the ground when Jesus was on the donkey are the same people who crowned him and hit him with sticks. But they're also the same people who said they shouldn't have done that afterwards because he really was the son of God … but I'm not saying I'm God."

You get the idea.

So what's he done now? His star flanker Schalk Burger was suspended for 8 weeks for eye gouging during the weekend's match against the British and Irish Lions. The touch judge saw the incident, yet incredibly Burger only received a yellow card. The incident was caught on camera and looks bad. Clearly Burger got what he deserved.

But did de Villiers accept the inevitable?

First there was this:

"I stand by Schalk, I'm still convinced he didn't do it. When you watch the footage closely, and if you know the nature of Schalk, you'll know he will never go to those measures to impose himself."

Then:

“Rugby is a contact sport, so is dancing. So if some guys can’t take it, make the decision. There are so many incidents that we can say we want to cite this guy for maliciously jumping into this guy’s face with his shoulder but we didn’t do it because we know that it’s just a game.

“Look, if you’re going to win games in the boardroom or in front of television cameras, then, look, do we really respect the game we know or should we go to the ballet shop for some nice tutus and get a great dancing show going? And then there will be no gouging, no tackling, no nothing.”

And when people dared to question the means used by South Africa to achieve victory:

“We would love people to take it on the chin, and say 'well done South Africa’. Nelson Mandela and F W de Klerk won the Nobel Prize for peace, whatever wrongs they did. But nobody can take away the fact they won that prize. And no one can take away that we are joyous to have won a series. We showed character, not luck.”

He saved his best till last. You can watch it here.

World rugby needs madmen like de Villiers. He doesn't seem to be doing his team any harm. South Africa are without question the team to beat in the Tri-Nations

Keep up the fine work, Peter!

IP World Mourns Loss Of Inventor Genius

Here's something you possibly didn't know: according to the Discovery Channel, the late Michael Jackson had a patent to his name.

It sounded unlikely to me, but then I found this. The granted patent covers a pair of shoes that allowed him to tilt on stage. The shoes were used in live performances of Jackson's song Smooth Criminal.

Claim 1 of the patent is below:

1. A system for engaging shoes with a hitch mans to permit a person standing on a stage surface to lean forwardly beyond his or her center of gravity, comprising:

at least one shoe having a heel with a first engagement means, said first engagement means comprising a recess formed in a heel of said shoe covered with a heel slot plane located at a bottom region of said heel, said heel slot plate having a slot formed therein with a relatively wide opening at a leading edge of said heel and a narrower terminal end rearward of said leading edge, said recess being larger in size above said terminal end of said slot than is said terminal end of said slot; and a second engagement means, detachably engageable with said first engagement means, comprising a hitch member having an enlarged head portion connected by a narrower shank portion to a means for raising and lowering said head of said hitch member above and substantially level with or below said stage surface, said head portion being larger in size than said terminal end of said slot and said shank portion being narrower than said terminal end of said slot, wherein said hitch member can be moved through apertures in said stage surface between a projecting position raised above said stage surface and a retracted position at or below the stage surface, and when said head portion of said hitch member is raised above said stage surface, said first engagement means can be detachably engaged with said projecting hitch member, thereby allowing a person wearing the shoes to lean forwardly with his or her normal center of gravity beyond a front region of said shoes, and maintain said forward lean.

(As an aside, that's how patent attorneys generally write. Plain English - what's that? Here is a shameless plug for one firm that gets it, though. It just happens to be my firm, A J Park. Convenient, no?)

Jackson was an oddball, for sure, but also a genius. Though let's also point out he had two co-inventors, Michael L. Bush and Dennis Tompkins. I suspect the overall concept was Jackson's and the other two made it work.

Tests Confirm People Will Believe Anything

According to Pope Benedict XVI, scientific tests prove that remains believed to be those of the Apostle Paul do in fact that belong to the saint.

The evidence? They found a white marble sarcophagus under the Basilica of St Paul's, which had for 2,000 years been believed to be the tomb of St Paul.

Carbon dating proved the bones inside dated from the first or second century.

I say bollocks. This sounds like the same pseudo-science that was used to claim the lost tomb of Jesus had been discovered.

Still, the fact the Pope has made a statement should be enough to convince many. He is infallible, after all.

Hell Is Other Atheists

It's fashion week in Milan.

Just as well because I've been running out of Casual Friday ideas.

But I think this outfit will go nicely with my work shoes.

******

I haven't written much about Michael Jackson. I don't need to, since the coverage has already saturated the media.

But in breaking news the Jackson family want a second autopsy to determine the cause of Jackson's death. The first report blamed it on the boogie.

******

Bernie Madoff is due for sentencing on Monday, US time.

Prosecutors want the fraudster extraordinaire to serve 150 years in prison.

150 years is of course a nonsense sentence. After all, he'd be out in just under 100.

******

In the Herald on Sunday, Gregor Paul asks the question: is it time to panic over the performance of the All Blacks?

Memo to APN: I don't know what you're paying Gregor, but if you pay me instead I'll give you answers, not questions.

My answer: Yes it is. As answers go it's short and to the point. And now you can use the space I've saved for more adverts. You need all the revenue you can get right now.

******

I am intrigued by this idea:

The author of The God Delusion is helping to launch Britain’s first summer retreat for non-believers, where children will have lessons in evolution and sing along to John Lennon’s Imagine.

The five-day camp in Somerset (motto: “It’s beyond belief”) is for children aged eight to 17 and will rival traditional faith-based breaks run by the Scouts and church groups.

Budding atheists will be given lessons to arm themselves in the ways of rational scepticism. There will be sessions in moral philosophy and evolutionary biology along with more conventional pursuits such as trekking and tug-of-war. There will also be a £10 prize for the child who can disprove the existence of the mythical unicorn.

Instead of singing Kumbiya and other campfire favourites, they will sit around the embers belting out “Imagine there’s no heaven . . . and no religion too”.

Dawkins, who is subsidising the camp, said it was designed to “encourage children to think for themselves, sceptically and rationally”. All 24 places at the retreat, which runs from July 27-31, have been taken.

Afternoons will be filled with familiar camp activities such as canoeing and swimming but the mornings will be spent debunking phenomena such as crop circles and telepathy.

I always imagined Hell would be like an extended school camp, only a little warmer. Maybe the famous atheist figures this will be the only chance his charges get to experience genuine nightmarish horror.

Time To Choose

You're being asked to choose sides.

One one side are Barnardos, Plunket, Save the Children, Unicef, and Womens' Refuge.

On the other side are Family First, the Sensible Sentencing Trust, and a whole pile of Christian lobby groups you've probably never heard of. These guys are angry that the law's been changed, because to beat a child is their God-given right. If we look at their website it's immediate what their arguments are. They even have a series of helpful, not-at-all-emotive* posters about various incidents that prove the law's an ass. Here are the main points:

• Some parents have been inconvenienced by the new law. CYFS and police have investigated a number of situations where an allegation has been made that a parent has been violent against a child. This is clearly an outrage. How dare they investigate these minor incidents. Shouldn't they be off doing something useful, like investigating bad parents? You, know, like responding immediately when someone complains about child abuse. Oh wait, hang on...
• In more than one instance a member of the public witnessed an "assault" and called the police. The police investigated but took no action. But this shows the law is an ass. In future the police must never respond to a complaint by a member of the public that a child has been assaulted. You're on your own, kids.
• Meanwhile, children continue to be killed, and it is all Sue Bradford's fault. We all remember when she said "This law will end child abuse", don't we? What do you mean, she never said that?
• Finally, we all know white people don't hurt their kids**.

If the loving chastisement visited upon the children of devoted Christians is as weak as their various justifications for repealing the current law, we probably have little to worry about.

*I'm being sarcastic.

** Okay, I invented that. But I wonder if that is the message these predominantly-white lobby groups are actually trying to spread: that child abuse is somehow a Maori or Polynesian problem, and that good white Christian folk just don't do that kind of thing.

Prisoner #32164, It's Your Turn To Wipe Max

Fat fraudster Max Heslehurst doesn't want to go to jail.

Max weighs over 200kgs. He was convicted on 41 counts of fraud and sentenced to three years and nine months in prison.

But Max's lawyer says prison isn't the place for a man with obesity issues, and that the facilities won't be adequate to cope with Max's various health problems.

It's difficult to feel sympathy for Hestlehust. His fraud involved selling cars and TVs that did not exist.

And his presence in prison may be a better deterrent for others than some of the other measures adopted by the law and order mob, such as tougher sentences. Why? Because, according to his lawyer, other prisoners have to help with Max's personal hygiene when he uses the toilet.

Which is why I will always stay on the straight and narrow. I don't want to wipe any fat man's arse.

Monstrous Nats Eat Babies

If you took Chris Trotter's opinion piece yesterday in the Dom Post seriously, you would be convinced the Four Horsemen are on the outskirts of town and that the end is nigh.

Thankfully he demolishes his own carefully crafted arguments.

He argues that the last 20 years have been dominated by the "progressives", but that a new conservative dark age is upon us.

This progressive ascendancy has lasted a long time. From the late 1980s until about 2005 - nearly 20 years.

Historically, it coincided with the rise of the NewLabour, Green, and Alliance parties, and the election of the Helen Clark- led Labour government - all of them elevated by the public's deep mistrust of the New Right revolution of 1984-96.

Trotter has conveniently ignored the fact that between 1990 and 1999 the Nats ruled the roost. That's nine of the twenty years he refers to - almost half. Labour, the Greens, New Labour and the Alliance were out of power during that period, and arguably had little influence on policies.

If a new Tory dark age is upon us, what can we expect? The sale of state assets? Certainly not in the short term (though they'd probably love to flog the lot off). Tax cuts for the rich? Not in this economic environment. Cuts to welfare and public spending? So far there's no indication any move is about to be made on welfare. And state spending did not drop significantly under the Budget.

But consider the past, and then you'll see these Tories can't be trusted. They'll take power and stick it to all of us. For example, look at the list below. It lists various regressive and tyrannical pieces of legislation passed under National governments:

• Resource Management Act 1991
• Human Rights Act 1993
• Official Information Act 1982
• Wages Protection Act 1983
• Historic Places Act 1993
• Consumer Guarantees Act 1993
• Anti-Personnel Mines Prohibition Act 1998
• Privacy Act 1993
• International War Crimes Tribunals Act 1995
• Minimum Wage Act 1983.

Environmental and heritage protection, human rights, consumer protection, open government, and wage protection.

God those Nats are monsters. To the barricades, comrades!

Tragedy Strikes Hollywood As Goldblum Found Alive

You are probably sick of the whole national anthem thing, but this really pisses me off.

Some hack writes a piece during the week criticising the fact that nobody sings our feeble anthem, and in response Graham Henry decides its time to clutter the boys' minds with more garbage.

They're having enough trouble learning all the rule changes. Lucky it's just Italy this week.

******

It was a bad day for the entertainment industry today:

• Michael Jackson died
• Farrah Fawcett died
• Jeff Goldblum is still alive.

But while some greats were on the way out, a sporting legend is returning. Shane Bond has re-signed with NZ cricket.

He may be slow, old, and probably half-broken, but he's probably still the best bowler to come out of this country since Hadlee.

******

I like to visit The Standard now and then. There's an occasional gem to be found there, although an angry hectoring tone largely dominates. The main theme is that the Nats are evil bastards who will eat our children if we let them. Contrast this with the most popular Right blog, Kiwiblog, where the evil bastards who will eat our children if we let them are the Left.

Being a dull moderate with no desire to save anyone from being eaten, I find the polemic style of argument tedious. But Kiwiblog also seems to be the domain of a number of seriously mentally ill people with real "issues". It is my impression that those on the Left in this country don't generally want to have their opponents killed. Whereas on Kiwiblog there are frequent calls for the death penalty, flogging, and other unpleasant punishments.

So, while I often shake my head at what I find, I don't tend to leave The Standard's website wanting to throw up.

The Standard's site has been down a bit of late. it may be up again by the time you read this, and I hope it is. Where else am I going to steal my material from?

Questions! More Questions!

David Farrar asks the question: why do the left hate the private sector?

This week has exposed the extent of the antipathy to the private sector from the Labour and Green parties. It was a chilling reminder of how ideologically driven these parties are in their hostility to the private sector.

The National Government confirmed this week that from September, tenants in state houses will be able to buy the house they live in. This was an explicit election policy.

David, let me explain the reason why opponents of your party dislike the housing plan. Your bosses spent much of the 90's downgrading the stocks of state houses. So it's not unreasonable to express just a wee bit of concern about what the new plans might do to the stocks of state houses in the long term, and what the real motivation for these plans is.

I've never trusted the Nats' claims they have no plans to privatise state assets. They can't at the moment, because it would be political death to do so. But if the opportunity presents itself in the future they'll have the "For Sale" sign on just about everything.

I'm not saying there isn't a place for the private sector: not at all. But let's have some honesty from the Nats on what their real long term plans are.

So David, I have a question for you: when will you start putting the disclaimer "written by a National Party crony" on everything you write?

Thursday Foolishness

I have seen many candidates for "Best Headline Ever", but is this the Holy Grail?

And in other news, wallabies are getting stoned on Tasmania's opium poppy crops and hopping about in circles.

It's probably the most interesting thing to happen in Tasmania since the Port Arthur massacre.

(If you found that offensive please click here to learn how to make a complaint)

******

The Campaign Against the Foreign Control of Aotearoa are organising this year's annual Roger Award. The Award is apparently given to the meanest baddest transnational operating in New Zealand. Previous winners include Telecom, BAT and Progressive Enterprises.

This from their website:

The criteria for judging are by assessing the transnational (a corporation with 25% or more foreign ownership) that has the most negative impact in each or all of the following categories:

Economic Dominance - Monopoly, profiteering, tax dodging, cultural imperialism
People - Unemployment, impact on tangata whenua, impact on women, impact on children, abuse of workers/conditions, health and safety of workers and the public.
Environment - Environmental damage, abuse of animals
Political interference - Interference in democratic processes, running an ideological crusade

There is also an Accomplice Award for an organisation (not an individual) which was the worst Accomplice during the year in aiding and abetting transnational corporations in New Zealand to behave as described in the criteria. The Accomplice’s award is in addition to the Worst Transnational Corporation award and will not necessarily be awarded every year. You may nominate for either or both awards.

I didn't know much about CAFCA until I visited their website. I just figured they were a bunch of social misfits who'd never worked a proper day's work in a real business, and whose luddism was only matched by their nasty xenophobic traits.

It turns out I was right.

We're a small country at the arse-end of the world, with limited resources. How are we as a nation going to develop our economy unless we attract foreign capital and foreign expertise? We need more foreign investment, not less. Anyone who believes we can put the fence up and still somehow manage to thrive economically is living in cloud-cuckooland.

I've been a bit tough on those loonies on the right of late. So to balance the score I'm anointing a new entrant to the Imperator Fish Hall of Shame - Ordinary Member. Well done CAFCA!

A Four Day Miracle

Now that Andrew Symonds is cured, will he be allowed to return to Australian cricket?

Symonds recently got himself clean for a social rugby league game:

"And a few days leading up [to the game] it was strictly lots of veggies and a fairly lean diet, and I swore myself off alcohol for about four days. I was pretty keen for this game."

Four whole days without booze.

Legend.

A New National Anthem

Last night I expressed the highly controversial (comments! why no comments!) view that "God Defend New Zealand" was a bit, well, lame.

So as a service to our proud nation I have decided to write a new anthem.

Now I should add immediately that, while I find the music dreary, it's the lyrics I really have difficulty with. So for the moment we'll keep the music and see what can be done with it later.

So what are the elements of a good singalong anthem?

• a bloody great war
• the sacrifice by our brave boys/girls
• beating the crap out of someone we don't like and celebrating the fact
• taunting our less fortunate neighbours that their country is sh*t, preferably in a mildly racist/xenophobic manner
• bragging about how good looking our sheep are.

Now with those things in mind, here's the first verse (remember, sung to the tune of "God Defend")

Verse One:

Mountain climbing brave Sir Edmund

Kirk and Kirwan, Eighty-Seven

World Cup trophy, Slice of Heaven

God that Flossy's a looker.

Aussies have all kinds of snakes

and spiders all over the place

as for their climate it's no shakes

God we've got it sorted.

Verse Two:

Shelford's gonad sack did tear

Saffer bit Fitzpatrick's ear

Our brave boys they showed no fear

Man I hate those Japies.

In the World Wars we were great

Kicked some arse in Alamein

Love those sheep - don't be ashamed

God bless Aotearoa.

National Anthems And Other Assorted BS

I've always been a big fan of the All Blacks, but one thing have always bugged me about international rugby in general: national anthems.

Especially ours. When I hear the words to "God Defend New Zealand", I imagine some puny child saying "please, God, don't let them hurt us". It's a pathetic tune that speaks to an insecure nation.

So when a journo hack takes a crack at players for not singing "God Defend New Zealand", I react the only way I know how: a furious petty denunciation. God it's good to have a blog.

Let's deconstruct what Mr Hinton has said:

The All Blacks are a disgrace.

Ooh, slipping into Rattue mode there. Careful, or you might be done for copyright infringement.

And, no, I’m not talking about their performances in the just-completed two-test series against France. That I can forgive.

So not the Rattue mode then. Lucky.

I'm referring, of course, to their continued reluctance to sing their country’s national anthem before a test match. Something has to be done about this – and quick – before what's left of our reputation is in complete tatters.

I'll say. Imagine what they must be talking about in all the cafes and bars in Paris:

"Jean-Pierre! Zees Kiwis zey is a disgrace! No passion!"

"I know, Jean-Luc, zey are like a stale croissant. Let us never go zere. Instead, we go to Australia, no? Hey, pass the fromage."

So this is clearly a national crisis and the AB's don't love their country.

What must they make of it? A group of proud young men about to represent their country on the biggest stage, and they're incapable even of singing the one true symbol of their nationhood. It is called an anthem for a reason, after all. You're supposed to let rip, regardless of whether you think a high note is the warm feeling you get after you score a try.

But not our lads. When it comes anthem time they look like they do when they walk into their once-a-week media session. As though they'd rather be somewhere else.

Let's get this clear. If you represent your country at anything you need to let rip with an anthem first.

I think this is why Helen Clark lost the last election. If she'd stood outside the White House during her last visit to the US and howled "God defend out triple star", might the election result have been different? Or might she have been arrested and accused of committing an act of terrorism?

Similarly if, before Michael Campbell had teed off in the US Open recently, he had launched into a verse of our anthem, might the patriotic fervour have lifted him to improve his game?

And would Rutherford have split the atom a few years earlier if only he'd sung "in the bonds of love we meet" in the lab?

And it disturbs me. Never more so than now.

We are all disturbed, Mr Hinton. Honestly.

The eyes of the world are on us, whether we like it or not. We're little more than two years away from hosting the Rugby World Cup, which has grown so big and so driven by the commercial imperative that in many ways it represents a potential last chance for one of the ''smaller'' nations to ever host the event.

Is it that serious that the IRB might not let us host again? I can just imagine the smoke-filled boardroom where the good and the great of the IRB meet to decide who gets to host:

"Japan will make huge profits"

"Yes, but England's the birthplace of rugby. Serious cash to be had there."

"Oh but don't the Kiwis do a cracking song. So the Kiwis it is then?"

And then:

Granted, things like ground security, player welfare in the streets and even the prevention of livestock being carried into stadiums might seem like greater concerns than a mere national anthem.

Yes. That's true.

But as the wise man once said, image is everything.

Another wise man (Samuel Johnson) also once said "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". Which is why I have no time for anthems, flags and other similar nonsense.

Stick to writing about rugby, Mr Hinton.

Smacking: Christine Branches Out

This is an intriguing headline from the Harold:

Bennett talks to Rankin about smacking quotes.

Good to see Christine is branching out with her various business activities, even if she is defying the law in doing so.

When I speak to someone about a quote, say if I want a builder to do some work for me, I like to get it in writing. So I wonder if I can get a copy of Rankin's quote under the Official Information Act.

Another question: why wasn't the smacking work put out to tender?

Oderint Dum Metuant

Crusher Collins wants to put our crims in shipping containers.

Too costly, I say!

Here are some alternatives.

• If we have to go with containers, let's at least pack them properly. Everyone knows that if you don't pack a container right stuff will fall and break. So let's pack them in real tight. And maybe there'll be a Guinness World Record in it if we do it properly.
• Crims will make great cleaning products. Melt them down to make soap, and so bring new meaning to the term "coming clean".
• Hungry lions, a stadium, and TV rights. Do you see where I'm going with this?
• Send them to Australia. Isn't that what they used to do?
• Put them in oil drums and bury them in a park in New Plymouth. Isn't that what they used to do with toxic material?
• Stop beating the law and order drum and actually try some non-custodial approaches to sentencing.

Imperator Fish: Saving the taxpayer's dollar is what I'm about.

Don't worry: I'm here for a while yet.

******

So you've got yourself into strife for being a bit mouthy and your boss has told you not to talk to the press.

At what point do you decide it's a good idea to talk to Investigate Magazine?

******

Talking of strident "family values" loonies, look what the "Vote No" campaign has on its website:

I am honestly not making this up.

(Hat-tip to the Standard for this.)

******

What would you rather not have been on Saturday night in Wellington?

• a rooster?
• a French rugby player out on the town?
• a female pitch invader?

All the mayhem may have been off the pitch, but at least we won the game.

But unless we improve considerably we'll come last in the Tri-Nations.

I may have to start agreeing with Rattue soon. And that would make me sad.

******

It would be a wonderful thing if something positive could come out of the protests in Iran.

But you just know this is China 1989 all over again, and that this regime has no intention of giving up.

And why would they? Power is good if you have it. If the people like you as well, that's just a bonus. But it's optional. In the words of Caligula:

Oderint dum metuant.
Let them hate me, so long as they fear me.

Money For You If You Vote Now*

I have been wondering about something for a while, in fact since I began reading the Herald.

It's this: Garth George, why so grumpy?

I have a number of theories, so let's put them to the test. Please have a go at the poll to the right of the main blog column.

And there's a special prize for the first 10 voters: I will give you money*

*DISCLAIMER: This is an outright lie.

ACT MP Strikes Out At The Water Cooler

It's been a bad week for the frothing-at-the-mouth brigade.

It began with both major party leaders criticising the "can we beat our children again please?" referendum question this week.

Then this news broke about the darling of the "string-em-high" movement:

Act MP David Garrett was spoken to by party leader Rodney Hide after making sexual comments to a female member of the party's Parliamentary office.

Oops.

The Herald on Sunday learned that Hide was approached by a staff member who expressed concerns about comments made by Garrett. The comments were to another staff member inside the party office, and about her elsewhere in the Parliamentary complex.

Those comments allegedly included one made when the MP saw the woman filling a drink bottle at a water cooler. The comment described an oral sex act.

Ouch!

Hide said he had not heard of that comment but confirmed that Garrett had made "off-colour remarks".

"Off-colour". Love the euphemism. Kind of like the "making a nuisance of himself to women" remarks recently made about another (former) Government MP. Another lawyer (damn!).

He had not sought details of the incidents as it was not his role to act as "judge and jury".

Sure. You're party leader and someone comes to you with a complaint about an MP's sexual misconduct. You don't ask for details. Why would you? What could go wrong?

Garrett's pet bill is destined for the scrapheap: at least the 3-strikes component anyway. So is his career, apparently.

Isn't it time we had another Fool of the Moment? Well done that man!

I Looked So You Don't Have To

There is a tear in the fabric of the Blogosphere.

No, it's not as if a mighty tree has fallen. But it has instead decided to nip overseas for some R&R. And a well-earned break too. After all, finding left-wing conspiracies everywhere is almost as tiring as constantly licking the boots of your masters.

With the crucible of wingnut rage on holiday, expect to encounter distressed and directionless right-wingers seeking other places to foul up.

Maybe they could go visit their friend Whaleoil. Who has an objectionable opinion about everything:

I hate to say it but the All Blacks will lose tomorrow.

Why?

Focus.

My spies have told me that today at 13:30 Mils Muliaina was walking Lambton Quay pushing a pram. At 16:30 he was seen again still pushin the fricken pram.

What a pussy. We are fricken doomed if this is the training the Captain and Fullback is doing the day before a test match they HAVE to win.

Doomed.

How dare Muliaina spend a moment with his family! The day before a big game he ought to be training hard, hour after hour, so that on the big day he's too tired to perform. Everyone knows that's what you do the day before the big game.

Whaleoil is not one of those pram-pushing types. And I'm with him on that. I really really would get upset if I saw him pushing one.

Waste Not Want Not

I pride myself on being able to write complete shite as and when required.

But I am in awe of this.

Thank heaven for the swine flu. After nine months of global recession it is good to have something harmless to worry about.

Like the Herald's ability to find jobs for fools.

They say the new flu is no worse than any other if you catch it. You'll feel rotten for a day or two and get over it.

Like this woman.

The reason the World Health Organisation is in pandemic mode is that the flu is new and populations lack resistance. It's a problem for society, not individuals.

Because we all know society's problems don't affect individuals...

If it spreads as quickly as these things can, the economy could be disrupted for six weeks. If only the recession was a pandemic.

Like the pandemic of 1918? Or what about one of the many bubonic plague or smallpox pandemics that wiped out entire communities. It'd be good to have one of those, eh?

I've yet to be convinced John Roughnan is an actual living person, because nothing in his columns makes sense. Instead, his columns read like someone has jumbled together an assortment of random ideas. I have always suspected "he" is in fact the place where leftover bits cut from work by Garth George, Paul Holmes, Tapu Misa and other Herald columnists go. With APN losing money by the truckload, they can't afford to chuck these bits out. Why not stick 'em all together and make a column out of them?

Won't Someone Think Of The Flies?

The squashing by Barack Obama of a small fly during a TV interview recently is just another example of naked American aggression.

Let's not get all misty-eyed about the first black man to be US President - Obama is a killer, a cold and ruthless one. And he enjoys the hunt.

"I got the sucker!" he says. And then the cold-blooded imperialist monster gloats over the body, no doubt imagining he is staring at the corpse of the free world.

Is there any hope for peace in this world when a fully armed President exhibits a complete disregard for the existence of a tiny insect?

Obama's decisive ruthlessness in addressing the "fly problem" should have us all worried. He is a menace to all right thinking insect-tolerating societies.

North Korea's colourful leader may be lobbing missiles over Japan into the sea, but I don't remember seeing any flies killed during those firings.

No, the true menace to world peace is the fly-murderer. Because of his despicable crime some baby maggots have no mummy.

Be afraid, comrades. Be afraid.

Is It Cos I Is Da PM?

A man is in trouble for lighting a joint in Parliament during the second reading of the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill.

At least now we know what the Nats were doing when they came up with their policies.

Bite Me!

Are we too soft on our kids?

This news just in:

A father in the US state of Arkansas has been convicted of felony battery and sentenced to six years in prison for disciplining his young son by biting his toes.

Oh, but it just gets better:

Hall was cited previously for biting his daughter.

Testimony revealed Hall and his wife, Virginia, would punish the children for blinking their eyes or moving while they were supposed to be napping.

But doesn't this conviction send confusing signals to parents? Now even a toe-bite isn't allowed. How will parents now know what is acceptable biting and what isn't?

When will this PC nonsense end? Let's have a new referendum question:

The Deal Of The Century

You want it? We got it.

Here's what we can do for you. Need a passport or visa? No problemo.

Got some trouble with parking tickets? You pays the fee we takes the pain away.

Dandruff? We cure it.

Gallstones? Got it covered.

Global warming? Are you for or against? Either way we fix it.

Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back.*

You pay now?

*DISCLAIMER: Refund may or may not be in Monopoly currency

Weird Wednesday

I didn't know Osama's family had a trucking business in this country until I read this headline.

A truck and trailer unit carrying beer and food

Beer? How's he going to explain that one to the fellas in the cave?

******

A T Prins (even the complainant's name sounds uptight) objects to the amorous affections shown by one horse to another on a Moro ad.

I remember seeing the ad and wondering "how many silly complaints will that one get"?

Complainant T Prins said it "was offensive to watch an advert in which two horses were fornicating. I am the parent of an eight year old and a two year old and work hard at preserving their innocence".

Sorry kids, from now on there will be no pets, no trips to the zoo, and absolutely no school visits to the farm.

"To take offence seems rather prudish and curiously anthropomorphic (it is not technically possible for animals to 'fornicate')," the bureau said.

Who knew?

******

I don't wish to sound like Garth George, but pardon? Is it now abuse to make a child clean the toilet? What is this PC nanny-state, leftist, socialist-agenda nonsense?

"They could have made him collect the dishes off the table but he was not given that option. He doesn't even clean the toilet at home, he's only 5 years old. I draw the line at that. It's a big no-no.

"My mana has been taken away from me. Noble's spirit has been trampled on."

Garth would say Noble needs a clip around the earhole (I wouldn't, of course).

When I were a lad [Yorkshire accent] I cleaned many a toilet. And it didn't do me any harm. Made me the man I am today. An angry resentful man who uses a blogsite to lash out at others.

******

A couple of months ago "Crusher Collins" was in the news media advocating the destruction of boy racer vehicles.

It turns out it was the police vehicle fleet she was really out to destroy.

Will PC Plod now get a bus pass? Will police chases be conducted on bicycle? Maybe officers will be issued with rollerskates.

Still, in terms of reducing carbon emissions, it's the only thing this government has done.

Did I Say No Preconditions? I Was Just Kidding

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has make a speech offering to recommence peace talks with the Palestinians.

I call on you, our Palestinian neighbours, and to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority - let us begin peace negotiations immediately, without preconditions. Israel is committed to international agreements and expects all the other parties to fulfil their obligations as well. I appeal, from here this evening, to the leaders of the Arab states and say - Let's meet. Let's talk peace. Let's make peace. I am willing to meet with you any time, any place - in Damascus, in Riyadh, in Beirut.

Well that's swell. No preconditions.

What else did Netanyahu say?

• The Palestinians must accept Israel as a Jewish state (too bad all you non-Jews living there).
• The Palestinian state must be completely deminitarised (i.e, at the mercy of Israel and every other neighbour).
• Settlements on the West Bank are to keep growing (i.e. "we'll have your land too").
• Refugees from the 1948 and 1967 wars will have no right of return.
• Jerusalem will not be divided. It will be the undivided capital of Israel.

Um, those all sound like pre-conditions to me. What actually will there be left to negotiate if the Palestinians accept that long list? Maybe they could talk about what colour to paint the barrier fence between them.

Of course, the Palestinians won't accept the list of demands. And Netanyahu knows that. Israel likes to recycle its failed politicians, and Netanyahu is a past failure of quite epic proportions. He was PM in the late 90's, and as PM he took a hardline approach towards Palestinian militancy. His policy was a complete failure. He showed then, as he is showing now, that he has neither the ability nor the desire to seek genuine peace.

But in case I am accused af piling the blame onto one side only, the Palestinian leadership is hardly that flash either. So it seems that peace is as far away in that part of the world as it has ever been.

I'll Vote Yes To That

Fronting Up

John Key and Mil Muiliaina are pictured together on page 2 of the Herald today.

Both led their teams to crushing losses on Saturday night. It seems Key would like to swap his shirt for the All Blacks captain's, the way opposing players sometimes swap shirts after a rugby game.

Perhaps Mr Key would like to follow another All Blacks tradition. After the test loss the All Black captain fronted up to a media conference and took the heat.

Where was Mr Key on Saturday night when his handpicked candidate for Mt Albert was being humiliated? On holiday.

Mils, you should give your shirt to someone who's earned it.

Mighty AB's Almost Too Good For Dastardly Foreigners

So the All Blacks lost on Saturday. I debated whether to write an article savaging the management and coaching of the team, the lack of cohesion, the absence of self-belief, etcetera etcetera.

Instead I'll leave that for the paid hacks.

So let's have something to lift the spirits. Here's a rating of the teams in the style of the UK's Telegraph or Sunday Times.

How They Rated

New Zealand:

1. Tony Woodcock: Played his heart out. Dominated up front against a cowardly opponent. 8/10
2. Andrew Hore: Unluckily injured early. But showed that indomitable spirit we know and love while he was on the field. 8/10
3. Neemia Tialata: A titan in the tight stuff. Had the frogs reeling. 9/10
4. Brad Thorn: A champion, and a giant of a man with a huge heart. Was unstoppable. 10/10
5. Isaac Ross: A worthy debut from the big youngster. We'll see plenty more of this boy. Was a lineout star. 9/10
6. Kieran Read: As ever he gave his heart and soul to the team. A brave performance, and one in which he never took a step backwards. 8/10
7. Adam Thomson: A legend in the making. Tackled his heart out and was everywhere on the field. His injury will be a cruel loss to this improving team. 8/10
8. Liam Messam: He just gets better and better. Was this the best performance by an NZ number 8 this decade? 10/10
9. Jimmy Cowan: The feisty Southlander was a revelation and his delivery was flawless. 9/10
10. Stephen Donald: So many clever little kicks that Daniel Carter will be worried about his place. Was unlucky to have some of his kicks ruled out on the full. 8/10
11. Josevata Rokocoko: Pure genius. When Joe touches the ball you expect magic. He delivered again on the big stage. 9/10
12. Ma’a Nonu: Forget the crazy hair, Ma'a's the business. His no-nonsense "get out of my way" approach destroyed the French line again and again. Only poor refereeing denied him more glory. 9/10
13. Isaia Toeava: A talisman in the midfield. This boy's still developing, but he has all the skills of a young Mike Catt. And the tacking prowess. 9/10
14. Cory Jane: A solid performance from Mr Reliable. He did the basics right. 7/10
15. Mils Muliaina – captain. Here is a true champion. He'll be ruing the poor refereeing decisions and questionable French tactics that denied him a first-up win. But he showed he's a class act. 9/10

Reserves:

16. Keven Mealamu: A stirling effort from the pocket battleship. 8/10
17. John Afoa: Got some late game-time and continued the utter domination of the French pack. 9/10
18. Bryn Evans: Got only a few minutes on debut. A future star. 7/10
19. Tanerau Latimer: Continued the AB's utter dominance in the loose when he came on. 8/10
20. Piri Weepu: A stout-hearted performance from this little champion. He did not put a foot wrong. 8/10
21. Luke McAlister: A natural ball-player, he made an immediate impact on the game, shredding the feeble French defence again and again. Only consistent French fouling prevented him from scoring. 8/10
22. Lelia Masaga: did not play

The Contemptible Cheating French:

Who cares?

Thank God! Panic Over!

Kerre Woodham has declared that the swine flu pandemic is hogwash.

I think it's about time we listened more to these bastions of common sense, rather than those so-called expert white-coated medical-type personages.

I am so relieved at the news of Kerre's edict that I've booked a flight to Mexico tomorrow to attend the Tijuana Pig-Wrestling Festival.

Now if Kerre would only declare global warming a myth...

Reforming The Justice System: Why?

Whenever someone is acquitted in a high-profile criminal case, there’s a media clamour to critique the system that allowed the verdict to occur.

We’ve seen this before. Just think Chris Kahui, Murray Foreman, and the Richards/Schollum/Shipton trials.

But when someone goes down for something, we hear barely a peep. Except sometimes, years later, when doubts begin to emerge in public about a particular conviction. Think Scott Watson, Mark Lundy and others.

So it was inevitable following the Bain acquittal that the news media would again fret over whether our justice system’s got it right. The Herald worries about the jury system and whether it’s right to withhold evidence from juries.

Even the normally sensible Listener is questioning why the accused should have a right to remain silent during trial. Although the Listener’s editorial on the issue might have delivered a more convincing argument had it not cited the Police Association and Stephen Franks as authorities.

So let’s look at some important questions and ask ourselves what, if anything, needs to change.

Is our justice system in need of reform?

Of course. Anything that fails, however infrequently, can be improved. Our aim should be a perfect system, where people get what they deserve.

Will adopting the civil law system of having examining magistrates improve our system?

There’s no evidence that anything would improve if we adopted a civil law system. There are probably as many miscarriages of justice in civil law systems as in common law ones.

What about the practice of withholding evidence from juries? Surely the jury should have all of the facts in front of them.

The rules of evidence have developed over hundreds of years, party as a response to numerous injustices. We should be very careful about just changing the rules overnight, otherwise we risk creating new injustices.

Lawyers are trained to look at evidence and make calls based on the reliability and probity of that evidence. It is not a skill that can ever be mastered because, human nature being what it is, mistakes will always be made. But by the time lawyers become judges they ought to be fairly good at picking through what is relevant to a case and what is not.

Juries do not in general have this skill. If something is potentially damning if true, but is actually based on quite flimsy evidence, the risk of injustice to the defendant is great. Take the Bain 111 phone call as an example. Nobody can be certain whether Bain said “I shot the prick” or something else, such as “I can’t breathe”. So the evidence of a confession is weak, but arguably if someone believes Bain confessed on the phone then they will believe he is guilty of murder, and none of the other evidence will matter.

I prefer the status quo, by and large, although there may always be a need to tinker with the rules. But I see no great crisis that requires the rules about what a jury can hear to be revised.

Do we need to abolish the right to silence?

The right to silence has been a foundation of the presumption of innocence for centuries. If someone is innocent until proven guilty, why should that person have to say a thing? I ask again, what great crisis has occurred in our society lately that requires us to roll back these protections?

And forget the fact that in the UK the right to silence has been significant eroded. What does that prove? Merely that the law and order mob are having a good time of it in the UK. Let’s not go there.

Do we need to reform how we select juries?

Some people worry that juries do not represent the overall make-up of society. It’s probably true that juries are over-represented by the retired, students and the unemployed. And most people who want to avoid jury duty will find a way to. But short of fully remunerating jurors for the income they lose, I see no other way to ensure juries are a true cross-section of the community.

Some people have suggested jurors should have to pass an intelligence test. These same people sneeringly state that Bain was obviously guilty, so that anyone who thinks otherwise must be an idiot. If we follow this reasoning then clearly the Bain jury were idiots. How you would ever measure juror intelligence is another question, and the idea is so daft I’ll move on.

Why not abolish the jury system altogether?

In favour of what? Do we now have a judge as the sole decider of fact? It would certainly cut costs. But what of the idea that one should be tried by a jury of his/her peers? Do we abandon that age-old principle now? If so, why? What has changed?

So no changes then?

Not major ones. Things can always be improved. But before we make radical changes, let’s make sure we know what we’re getting.

Police Catch Up With Rogue Builder

Police yesterday apprehended a rogue tradesman who is alleged to have defrauded a number of people from a small community.

Police last night named the man as Aleksander Borowski. He is believed to be from Poland, and in this country on an expired work visa.

Borowski is accused of fraudulently taking money from the residents of Bobsville. Police have charged him with offences relating to fraud, but indicated that more charges were likely.

And the investigation may yet claim the career of the mayor of Bobsville.

Borowski's shoddy work practices were the subject of a Fair Go report last year. And last month the roof of a barn he built for a local farmer, James Pickles, collapsed, seriously injuring the farmer. Occupational Health and Safety have not yet released their report into that incident.

The fraud charges relate to Mr Borowski's construction business. Borowski, known only as "Bob" to the locals of Bobsville, is accused of taking money for construction work he never intended to undertake.

When the police tried to arrest Borowski last week he fled into the bush. He was found yesterday hiding in a garden shed in Sunflower Valley.

The community of Bobsville has been rocked by the affair.

"We were all taken in", said Mr Dixon, the local postman. "Bob was a popular guy, and he was always helping out in the community. He even helped build the local school."

But the school's headmaster Mrs Percival was less impressed. "Bob? He was a cowboy". She said the plasterwork on one wall of the school hall had cracked in several places. "That's his work. We've had a quote and it will cost over $30,000 to fix it."

Aleksander Borowski

Local property developer Barry Beasley was especially affected by Borowski's shoddy work. "I used Bob on a lot of projects", he said. "Seven houses and a couple of commercial buildings. A couple of years later and they're literally falling to pieces."

Mr Beasley's lawyer, leaky-homes specialist Darryl Scrimshank, said the Bobsville Council had to take responsibility for Borowski's work. "In the end it was they who signed off on his work," said Mr Scrimshank. He would not say how much Beasley is seeking from the Council, but said it was in the "hundreds of thousands".

And the affair may yet claim the career of local mayor Bernard Bentley. Police are investigating alleged irregularities at the Bobsville Council regarding several planning and building consents for Mr Borowski's work.

Mr Bentley was last night refusing to speak to the media.

Other residents who met Mr Borowski are struggling to cope with the scale of the alleged deception.

"He told me he was from England," said local museum manager, Mr Ellis. "And he had the accent."

Police believe the English accent is the result of hundreds of hours of practice in front of the television. "He wanted to fit in," Detective Inspector Keith Chapman told us, "so he reinvented himself as this lovable English guy.

"But when we raided [Borowski's] house, we found boxes of DVDs from TV shows, like Men Behaving Badly."

Not everyone was taken in by the lovable Englishman.

"He was a queer one, that Bob," said local man Jack Fothergill. "He'd talk all the time to all the machines and diggers he used to do his work. He'd give them all names, like Dizzy, Travis and Lofty. I thought he was mad."

Police are still seeking the whereabouts of Borowski's alleged accomplice, known only as "Wendy".

Borowski is due to appear in court this morning.

For What It's Worth

Dr Worth resigned from Parliament today. He issued a press release, which I have reproduced below.

Statement by Dr Richard Worth

“Since I resigned as a Cabinet Minister earlier this month,

He was about to be fired, but okay...

I have been considering my personal options, and also the welfare of the National Party – a party which I love and have served to the best of my ability for the past nine years.

That does not say much for his ability, if that was the best he could do.

“As a result, I have today also resigned as a list Member of Parliament with immediate effect.

He's going before being pushed. They can’t sack him from Parliament, unless he's convicted of a serious offence. That probably won't happen, at least in this parliamentary cycle. But he's the political equivalent of crap on your shoe. You just want to wipe it off and forget about the stink.

“It would be easy for me to be bitter about the avalanche of rumour and innuendo that has led me into making this decision which I regard as being in the best interests of my party.

It would be very easy. I see you’re taking the easy option, Dr Worth.

“I wish only to restate that I have not committed any crime, and I remain confident that when the true facts are established I will be cleared of any and all allegations of criminal conduct. I will steadfastly defend myself in respect of those allegations.

And let’s not forget Dr Worth’s been charged with no offence. Allegations like the ones swirling around him often don’t see the courtroom. Sexual offences are hard to prove.

But it is impossible to defend oneself in the public and political arena against hearsay, character assassination and scuttlebutt.

It is impossible when you show no evidence of contrition, or realisation that you've done anything wrong. The New Zealand public can forgive a lot, but they hate an arrogant prick. Self analysis is apparently not Worth’s style. This reminds me of what Colin Espiner said about Worth's sense of self entitlement.

“Like most of us, if we are honest, I may at times during my life have said and done things which, when analysed in the cold light of day, may seem to have been unwise.

Mistakes over a long career are to be expected. But let's remember we're talking about blunder after blunder, followed then by allegations of sexual impropriety, all in a short space of time.

As I said last week, like any other citizen I am entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

In relation to the allegations being investigated by the police, no question. But in relation to your performance as a minister, I think the jury's in and the judge is getting his black cap out.

“I could spend the future bemoaning the unfairness of a campaign which has Labour’s fingerprints all over it.

And judging by the tone of his release to this point, it's a fair bet he will.

But the fingerprints? They were all yours, Mr Worth, and they were all over the keypad of your phone.

But that is not my nature.

Brilliant!

The campaign has been run against me by people who are unable or unwilling to back their claims with credible evidence of criminal activity.

So anything goes in politics, so long as it is not actually criminal.

“I went into politics to make a contribution to New Zealand. I can see that it is no longer possible for me to do that through politics, so I am now choosing to follow another positive path.

"Another" positive path? The only positive path that springs to mind is the path you gave Rodney Hide back to Parliament. What actually have you contributed, other than the continued existence of the ACT Party?

“Helping New Zealand win international trade will be the focus of my future activities. I believe I may make a greater contribution through my business activities than by attempting to remain in politics

Judging by your contribution to politics to date, I’m sure you’re right.

in what would clearly be an untenable position, and hoping to be forgiven for things of which I am innocent.

“My conscience is clear.

So you have a conscience then?

Those who have chosen to try to ruin my reputation should perhaps now examine theirs.

A man's reputation stands and falls by his own words and deeds.

“My wife and family stand behind me in this decision, as they have stood by me, together with our friends, in the past difficult weeks.

He clearly has a very understanding wife. Most wives wouldn’t stand for what he's done.

Their loyalty and love has been a timely reminder for me about what is truly important in life.

"Me!"

This whole episode has taken a toll on me personally,

What about your family? What of the toll on them? Now would be a good time to express regret to your wife for being such a lech.

and this is why I have made myself unavailable to the media and will continue to do so. I would ask that media now respect my right to privacy and allow me to get on with my life.

And after a short while we probably will forget this utterly forgettable man.

“That is all I wish to say. I am moving forward on a new path”.

Dr Worth, do us all a favour and PUT THAT CELLPHONE DOWN!

Chris, We Need To Talk

Dear Chris

This is hard to write. I'm no good with feelings, and this letter has taken everything out of me.

But, Chris, there's something we need to talk about. It's been gnawing at me for a while now, but until this morning it was just something buried in the back of my mind.

You need to know how much you used to mean to me. I first noticed you a few years ago. What you did seemed fresh and I used to love the way you weren't afraid to tell it how it was.

I now realise how young and naive I was.

Looking back, the warning signs were there, if only I'd paid more heed to them.

I think it was 2007 when I first felt any doubts. They were momentary doubts, but I should have paid more attention to my intuition. At the time I dismissed what you said as harmless hyperbole. You said:

Let's face it. Wales are rubbish. They are the village idiots of rugby union. They have fans who live for the game, administrators who've killed it and players who lie down for the cause.

Chris, that hurt. I've been to Wales a few times, and I've always enjoyed the company of the locals. They adore New Zealanders and they love our rugby. What would possess you to say such a nasty thing?

And then after 2007 you started to write column after column of vitriol attacking the NZRU and its re-selection of Graeme Henry. Your tone became increasingly strident, as if all the ails that beset New Zealand rugby could be easily cured. I began to wonder if you were living in another time, and if you'd noticed that professionalism changed everything. Did you have nothing else to write about?

Chris, I never saw the anger until it was too late. Every week I'd find another story attacking hapless sports administrators, and blasting our national obsession, and yet somehow I managed to block them out. Your bitterness began to reach extravagant levels and still I pretended not to see it.

But this morning it all came together. You crossed a line. And then I realised what had happened.

Chris, we need to talk. I need to tell you some things. You are the print version of Murray Deaker. You are to sports journalism what Michael Laws is to sensible political discourse. You express opinions loudly, and castigate anyone with a contrary view. I just don't know how you can hold any informed opinions about the state of New Zealand rugby when you admit to being too bored to watch much of the Super 14.

Chris, things are too far gone for us to patch things up. So I think this might be it. I'm sure I'll see your articles now and then, and it will be hard to just let my eyes stroll right on past them, but I know that's what I have to do. I have to move on. It's better for both of us that way.

Tuesday Evening Cheap Shots

I have no energy to write anything intelligent tonight. So its "fish in a barrel" time, folks.

The Herald "Didn't Spot That One" award goes to...

Apparently Gordon Ramsay is an arrogant narcissist. Crazy, I know.

Blogger hack slams poor journalistic standards

Yet further evidence that editorial staff of the Herald have a bet on to see who can use the word "slammed" in the most headlines.

Blogger Hack then gets dictionary out

Our beloved Herald asks is Susan Boyle "dead as a phenomenon"?

The term "phenomenon" generally means something that exists and can be experienced with the senses. So what the headline should have read is, "Is Susan Boyle Dead?" To which the answer is... (drumroll) no.

I know - I should get paid for doing this.

Apparently the other guys might be quite good

Is this the most informative football headline you'll read?

Didn't Italy win some kind of big trophy a couple of years ago? Yeah, I guess they might be quite tough.

Blogger hack then goes to bed

The Bain Case and Jury Behaviour

Since the Bain case is all the rage, let's go with it. The topic exercising the conscience of the nation today appears to be the behaviour of some of the jurors after the verdict was reached.

According to news reports, some jurors shook Bain's hand after the verdict was announced, and one hugged him. Two jurors apparently turned up to Bain's victory party.

And a juror spoke to the Herald on Sunday about the intense pressure on the jury. The juror also spoke of being harassed by people who believed Bain was guilty:

She said each juror had been approached by someone convinced Bain was guilty. Two weeks in she was tackled by a man in a lift who said: "He's guilty, look at the bloody evidence."

Cue the predictable outrage. Labour Justice spokesperson Lianne Dalziel told Morning Report that the jurors should have been shunted out the back of the courthouse and taken home. Quite how this was going to be managed when some jurors insisted on exiting via the front door was not expanded on by Dalziel. One the trial ended the jurors were entitled to do as they pleased. That didn't stop Dalziel from blasting the behaviour of the jurors as inappropriate.

Then the Law Society's go-to man Jonathan Krebs weighed in on Morning Report, expressing concern at the conduct of the jurors.

So what are the rules about juries in this regard?

During a criminal trial jurors are usually directed by the judge not to communicate with the defendant or other witnesses. They are told to keep their deliberations secret and not to discuss the case other than during the course of deliberations.

There are also contempt rules. The behaviour of the strangers described by the juror above might amount to contempt of court.

But post-trial there are very few rules to govern what jurors can say or do. Publication of the identity or address of jurors or former jurors is an offence, unless publication is of a former juror with that person's consent. So there is nothing illegal about a juror selling his/her story to the media, however "untoward" it may seem. Nor is there anything to prevent a juror from making contact with the defendant once the trial is over.

That doesn't excuse the behaviour of those jurors who appeared to be just a little too friendly with Bain after the verdict was announced. But they did nothing legally wrong. Our jury laws are quite lax. It might be tempting to amend the law in this area (there is already talk of the Law Commission being asked to consider the matter), but how often has this been an issue? The Bain case is perhaps the biggest case the country has seen in terms of profile and notoriety. And the worst jury behaviour we can point to is the hugging of a man innocent in the eyes of the law and a couple of people turning up to a party. I don't think this heralds the fall of Western civilisation.

John Campbell: What Won't He Do For A Story?

He got a telling-off for staging an interview with the alleged Waiuru medal thief. We only found out afterwards that the "interview" was a re-enactment.

Then he was all over Karam and Bain on Friday after the acquittal, as if he was their best mate.

And now he's in trouble for breaking through a police cordon during the Napier siege.

Are there any barriers left for John Campbell to break?

The Bain Case: Updated (Again!)

[note 12/6/09: Okay, so the evidence previously the subject of a suppression order can now be revealed. It's in every paper, so there's no need for me to repeat it. The Herald released the evidence last Saturday, only to do an "oops!' and withdraw it again. Now it's permanently in the public domain]

[note 8/6/09: This article has been heavily amended. It appears the Herald may have published information in breach of a suppression order, so I have removed all details relating to the matters reported by the Herald]

It has become increasingly common for a controversial acquittal to be followed by the release of "suppressed" evidence.

In the Bain case this was bound to happen. Saturday's Herald contained a report about evidence that was "suppressed".

I'm not going to speculate on whether that evidence would have been critical to either side.

And I've previously made it clear I have no interest in reviewing the evidence to decide whether or not Bain committed mass murder. The jury heard the evidence and made a decision. I respect that decision. But I'm happy to discourse on the relevant law.

So I will talk about one of the most common grounds for refusing to admit evidence in a criminal trial. That is the situation where the Crown wishes to introduce evidence about the past acts, state of mind or convictions of a defendant. This is generally known as "propensity evidence".

What is the law?

So what is the legal basis for using, or not using, evidence of past acts or even prior convictions? It starts with the Evidence Act 2006, which sets out the rules of evidence the courts are required to follow. The courts work with facts, so the rules of evidence are designed to ensure only the most reliable facts are admitted as evidence.

So in many cases the past acts or criminal convictions may be disallowed as evidence, because they fall within the scope of section 43 of the Evidence Act, being evidence offered by the prosecution about a defendant's propensity to act in a particular way or to have a particular state of mind.

Section 43 says:

(1) The prosecution may offer propensity evidence about a defendant in a criminal proceeding only if the evidence has a probative value in relation to an issue in dispute in the proceeding which outweighs the risk that the evidence may have an unfairly prejudicial effect on the defendant.

(2) When assessing the probative value of propensity evidence, the Judge must take into account the nature of the issue in dispute.

(3) When assessing the probative value of propensity evidence, the Judge may consider, among other matters, the following:

(a) the frequency with which the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which are the subject of the evidence have occurred:

(b) the connection in time between the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which are the subject of the evidence and the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which constitute the offence for which the defendant is being tried:

(c) the extent of the similarity between the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which are the subject of the evidence and the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which constitute the offence for which the defendant is being tried:

(d) the number of persons making allegations against the defendant that are the same as, or are similar to, the subject of the offence for which the defendant is being
tried:

(e) whether the allegations described in paragraph (d) may be the result of collusion or suggestibility:

(f) the extent to which the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which are the subject of the evidence and the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which constitute the offence for which the defendant is being tried are unusual.

(4) When assessing the prejudicial effect of evidence on the defendant, the Judge must consider, among any other matters,—

(a) whether the evidence is likely to unfairly predispose the fact-finder against the defendant; and

(b) whether the fact-finder will tend to give disproportionate weight in reaching a verdict to evidence of other acts or omissions.

Why do the rules exist?

So why have these rules? Why not just put all the facts before the jury and let them decide?

The answer is simple. In a criminal trial the defendant is accused of an offence. The fact that the defendant may have said or done something similar in the past is arguably irrelevant to the central question: did he/she do it on this occasion? If the facts of the case do not establish an offence, the defendant's past actions should be irrelevant. Juries are laypeople and don't understand the laws of evidence. Some jurors may put undue weight on someone's past conduct when the facts don't necessarily prove an offence has been committed.

Of course, a propensity to act or think in a certain way may be relevant in some situations. So the judge in a criminal trial has to decide whether to admit the evidence.

The Law Commission reviewed the evidence rules relating to propensity and veracity in 2008, following the controversial Rickard/Shipton/Schollum acquittals. You might recall that in that case the jury were not told that Shipton and Schollum were already serving prison sentences for rape. The Law Commission's report concluded that it was too early to tell whether the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act needed to be changed.

Some people will still say the law is absurd and that the jury should always hear all of the evidence. But remember - a defendant is not on trial for his/her past acts. If it is not directly relevant and may in fact do great harm to the defendant, propensity evidence should not be admitted.

Obama and the Holocaust

US president Barack Obama has just visited the site of the former Buchenwald concentration camp.

56000 people died at Buchenwald during World War Two.

I've never been to Buchenwald, but I did go to Auschwitz-Birkenau while on a visit to Poland in 2001.

The tour takes you through the Auschwitz camp. At first, until you actually go into some of the buildings and see the ghastly trophies to Nazi evil, the place seems quite pleasant. The brick buildings are well maintained and the tree-lined vistas make a walk around the camp quite a pleasant excursion.

But then you see the reminders. The rooms filled with the shoes, or the false teeth, or the hair of the dead. The gas chambers.

The shooting wall where thousands were summarily shot.

And then there's Birkenau just down the road.

Birkenau is where the real mass slaughter took place. The barracks are huge, but you couldn't imagine putting livestock in them, let alone real people. And there are so many of these buildings. You can just imagine the unspeakable misery of the thousands who died in such squalor.

During Obama's visit he spoke against those who denied the existence of the Holocaust. He called Buchenwald the "ultimate rebuke" to those people.

And it is difficult to fathom the mindset of those deniers. Thankfully they are a deluded minority.

Down Poodle! Down!

The National Party has unleashed its trained poodles to nip at the heels of Phil Goff.

All in a desperate attempt to shift the focus of the Worth fiasco away from the blundering Prime Minister.

The yappiest poodle is Mr Farrar. He's now posted three attacks on Phil Goff on his blogsite (here, here and here). It's not clear whether he's following orders, or whether he's decided to take the initiative and do what he think is best for the Party. But how can anyone seriously think Goff is the villain of the affair? Here's what happened:

• A Labour Party member approached Goff and made an allegation against Richard Worth. She did not want publicity. Goff promised to keep the matter confidential.
• Some time passed. The alleged victim was not ready to proceed with a complaint. She had a family to consider.
• Finally they agreed that Goff would raise the matter with Key. He did so privately. He didn't want to be seen to be muckraking or digging dirt on the private life of a fellow MP. That's not his style. He told Key there were phone logs and texts.
• Key did nothing for a month. Key did not even ask to see the evidence.

The only villain appears to be Worth, if the allegations are true. Not Goff. Or Key. The matter raises questions about Key's judgment and leadership, but those are matters going to competence, not moral decency or integrity.

The attacks on Goff will probably backfire. Those whose hatred of all things Labour blinds them will not see that, and will think the questions being raised about Goff are fair ones. If anything, Goff is being attacked for not behaving despicably. If he had really wanted to do harm to Key and Worth he'd have leaked the information to the media.

So please, poodles, go back to your kennels.

Did Bain Do It? Imperator Fish Does Not Ask the Hard Questions

I am going to break a trend and not invite people to speculate on whether Bain "got away" with mass murderer.

If you can find many other blogsites and newspaper forums that are not asking that question, you'll be doing well.

It annoys me that people think they know better than the 12 men and women who sat for three months and listened to all the evidence. On most issues I'd normally say "so fine, let people think what they want." But in this situation a man's reputation is being affected. And don't forget he's served 13 years in jail already, and probably won't get compensation. What exactly is Bain getting away with?

Of course, on all the critical issues, where better to take the pulse of the nation than the Herald's Your Views?

Jan of Wellington Central said:

Time to get rid of the jury system, how could there not be one of those jurors who had the commonsense to look through the smoke and mirrors. I don't believe they even looked at each piece of evidence, simply took the easy way out. How could they believe the crazy suicide note, the acted 111 call. Didn't they even consider fingerprints, marks on David, blood of Stephen on David. David Bain is NZ's OJ Simpson. This case has never been about justice, simply about winning. One man's obsession

Yeah, let's not be having any of this namby pamby jury system nonsense. Why should we listen to what the public think about a case? Oh, wait...

Suspicious of Auckland, said:

The selection system for jurers should include a basic intelligence test.

But not a spelling test, eh? "Jurers"?

Richard Smith of Christchurch knows who killed the Bains:

Those who are saying there is no evidence to suggest David Bain is guilty, clearly live in their own little fantasy land and don't read the news on the website that they are subscribed to. His fingerprints on the gun. Blood from the victims on his clothes. Injuries consistent with a fight. His gun. His gloves. His key. There is not a shred of physical evidence pointing towards Robin Bain. Robin Bain's were not on the gun that he used to kill himself. Yes. I think the jury got it wrong. Read the evidence before you scream injustice and incompetence by the police. /sigh

Indeed I sighed too after I read your post, Dick.

UncleSi of Glengarry:

David is as guilty as sin. ALL of the forensic evidence points solely at him. The people who think he is innocent are confusing conjecture and circumstantial evidence with the real hard evidence. Today is a great shame for the New Zealand legal process as David and his group of 'True Believer' followers will proclaim David to be innocent which is simply not true. I would urge people to look dispassionately at the EVIDENCE of the case, the result is clearly that David murdered his family.

All of the forensic evidence? What about all those expensive experts the defence called? Liars, all of em! After watching the box set of CSI Miami Uncle Si is ready to go crimebusting.

And so on and so on. And if you want to go into toxic shock try looking at some of the right wing blogs (usual suspects).

But me, I accept the verdict. Not because I'm convinced of Bain's innocence, but because the system tried him and failed to convict. And not through a lack of resources. To me there was never any question about the verdict: the case screamed "Reasonable Doubt" from the start.

So let's leave Mr Bain alone and focus on the real villains in our midst.

Dickie the Very Naughty Engine

It was a hot summer's day on Sodor Island. The Fat Controller had come to visit the villagers to talk to them about Dickie the Very Naughty Engine. Because Dickie the Very Naughty Engine had been very naughty again, and the villagers were very cross.

But when the Fat Controller reached the village he saw that the villagers were armed with pitchforks. The Fat Controller tried to explain to the villagers that he was very cross with Dickie, but the villagers wouldn't listen. They began to wave their pitchforks at the Fat Controller.

So the Fat Controller called the Engineer on the telephone and told him to send along two of the Fat Controller's favourite engines straight away. They were Very Special Engines. Along came the Very Special Blue Engine, just as the village people started to look as if they might do something untoward.

The Fat Controller jumped about the Very Special Blue Engine in the nick of time. The Very Special Blue Engine began to hiss and its wheels began to turn.

"Goff! Goff! Goff!" its wheels thumped, "Goff! Goff! Goff!"

The Very Special Blue Engine chugged merrily along, propelled by steam, and the relentless pressure of hot air.

"Goff! Goff! Goff!" The Fat Controller turned to see who was making that noise. The Very Special Black Engine was right behind, steam puffing from its funnel!

The Very Special Engines needed fuel to make the hot air that propelled them forward, but they had almost run out. This made the Fat Controller sad. He could see the angry village folk running behind with their pitchforks. They weren't very far behind.

Just then the Fat Controller saw something on the horizon. It was another engine! "Hooray!" shouted the Fat Controller. For it was another Very Special Engine!

"Bain! Bain! Bain!" the new engine thumped, "Bain! Bain! Bain!"

The Fat Controller leaped aboard the new engine, and it raced down the tracks away from the angry villagers. The Fat Controller was saved!